DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 6, 2025 and June 5, 2026. Claims 1-22 are pending, claims 8-22 have been withdrawn based on the election/restriction filed June 5, 2026. Invention I drawn to claims 1-7 was elected with traverse and claims 8-22 have been withdrawn.
Therefore claims 1-7 have been examined below. Claims 8-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected Species and/or Sub-Species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 30, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group/Invention I drawn to claims 1-7, a leg guard comprising a thigh guard comprising a first hinge member, in the reply mailed April 06, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “A requirement for restriction is proper only where two conditions are both satisfied: (1) the inventions claimed in the respective Groups are independent or distinct as claimed; and (2) there would be a serious burden on the Examiner if restriction were not required. See MPEP § 803(I); 35 U.S.C. § 121; 37 C.F.R. § 1.142. With regard to the first condition, claim 13 encompasses every element of claim 1. Because claim 13 expressly recites every element of claim 1 including the first and second hinge members and their interlocking at an interlocking angle-the combination of claim 13 necessarily requires the very features of the sub combination of claim 1. A combination that fully contains a sub combination cannot be shown to be patentable apart from, or distinct over, that
sub combination. The distinctness required for restriction as between Group I and Group III is therefore absent, and the first condition for restriction fails.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Invention I and Invention II are a combination that fully contains a sub combination but instead that the inventions claimed are distinct as claimed and would require a serious burden on the examiner if the restriction were not required. Independent claim 1 does not require a cushion as required in independent claim 13. Further the claim 13 requires a first cover shell comprising a first hinge member and claim 1 requires a thigh guard comprising a first hinge member.
Examiner is arguing that the species election relates to the different embodiments that the Applicant has provided, see Applicant’s disclosure listing the two independent claims as different embodiments Pages 2-3 of disclosure filed January 6, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II/III. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 06, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claims 1-7 (any dependent claim is subject to this interpretation due to dependency from claim 1) the limitation “first hinge member” and “second hinge member” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “member” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and the claims that depend therefrom 2-7) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, the term “a leg guard, comprising: a thigh guard comprising a first hinge member, and … the knee guard comprising a second hinge member,“ specifically the terms “first hinge member and second hinge member are unclear terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “first hinge member” and “second hinge member” is neither defined in the specification, nor is a standard provided for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably be apprised of the scope of the claim term based upon the state of the art. Claim 1 does not definitively establish the geometric dimensions and tolerances of ““first hinge member” and “second hinge member”, therefore it is not reasonable for one of ordinary skill to understand the metes and bounds of ““first hinge member” and “second hinge member”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0326290 A1 to RODRICK et al. (herein after "Rodrick").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1, Rodrick discloses a leg guard, comprising: a thigh guard comprising a first hinge member (leg guard 100; Rodrick ~ regarding leg guard)(thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard)(Figures 6B, 7A,7B & 9C; Rodrick regarding a first hinge member (50; regarding first hinge member and second hinge member (annotated Figure 7A;Rodrick) a knee guard pivotally attached to the thigh guard and positioned below the thigh guard (knee guard 6 and or extended knee guard 8; Rodrick ~ regarding a knee guard)(thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard), the knee guard comprising a second hinge member (knee guard 6 and or extended knee guard 8; Rodrick ~ regarding a knee guard)(50; regarding first hinge member and second hinge member (annotated Figure 7A;Rodrick) , wherein the thigh guard is configured to pivot relative to the knee guard and the first hinge member is configured to interlock with the second hinge member when the first hinge member and the second hinge member meet at an interlocking angle (thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard)(knee guard 6 and or extended knee guard 8; Rodrick ~ regarding a knee guard)(Figures 6B, 7A,7B & 9C; Rodrick regarding first hinge member and second hinge member (annotated Figure 7A; Rodrick) and wherein the thigh guard is configured to pivot relative to the knee guard and the first hinge member is configured to interlock with the second hinge member when the first hinge member and the second hinge member meet at an interlocking angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 2, Rodrick discloses the leg guard of claim 1, wherein the first hinge member is formed along a bottom edge of the thigh guard and the second hinge member is formed along a top edge of the knee guard (thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard)(knee guard 6 and or extended knee guard 8; Rodrick ~ regarding a knee guard)(Figures 6A-6B, 7A,7B & 9C; Rodrick ~ regarding wherein the first hinge member is formed along a bottom edge of the thigh guard and the second hinge member is formed along a top edge of the knee guard).
As to Claim 3, Rodrick discloses the leg guard of claim 1, wherein the first hinge member and the second hinge member are complementary in shape (Figures 6A-6B, 7A, 7B & 9C; Rodrick ~ regarding wherein the first hinge member and the second hinge member are complementary in shape) (thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard)(knee guard 6 and or extended knee guard 8; Rodrick ~ regarding a knee guard.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
596
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 4, Rodrick discloses the leg guard of claim 1, wherein the thigh guard is configured to pivot upward and downward relative to the knee guard (Figures 6A-6B, 7A,7B & 9C and Paragraphs 0010, 0054, 0059; Rodrick teaching wherein the thigh guard is configured to pivot upward and downward relative to the knee guard.) (thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard)(knee guard 6 and or extended knee guard 8; Rodrick ~ regarding a knee guard.
As to Claim 5, Rodrick discloses the leg guard of claim 1, wherein the interlocking angle is met when the thigh guard is configured to pivot to an angle of about 65 degrees to about 105 degrees relative to the knee guard (Paragraph 0009 and Figure 6A-6B; Rodrick "In another embodiment, the thigh guard is configured to articulate less than 90 degrees relative to the knee guard upon movement of the user to a crouching position")(thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard)(knee guard 6 and or extended knee guard 8; Rodrick ~ regarding a knee guard).
As to Claim 6, Rodrick discloses the leg guard of claim 1, wherein the knee guard is attached to the thigh guard at a pivot point positioned on a lateral portion of the knee guard (Figures 6A-6B,7A,7B & 9C; and paragraph 0061; Rodrick ~ regarding wherein the knee guard is attached to the thigh guard at a pivot point positioned on a lateral portion of the knee guard.) (pivot point 44; Rodrick ~ regarding a pivot point).
PNG
media_image4.png
794
842
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0326290 A1 to RODRICK et al. (herein after "Rodrick").
As to Claim 7, Rodrick discloses the leg guard of claim 6, wherein the pivot point (44; Rodrick) but fails to explicitly disclose being located about 2 inches to about 3 inches from a center line of the knee guard.
Another Embodiment of Rodrick discloses wherein the pivot point (44; Rodrick) is located about 2 inches to about 3 inches from a center line of the knee guard (Paragraphs 0057-0058; Rodrick, as doing so would provide increased comfort and mobility for the wearer.) (leg guard 100; Rodrick ~ regarding leg guard)(thigh guard 10; ~ regarding a thigh guard).
Therefore, based on Rodrick’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Rodrick’s leg guard’s pivot point to include wherein the pivot point is located about 2 inches to about 3 inches from a center line of the knee guard, as doing so would provide increased comfort and mobility for the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and can be found in PTO-892 for submitted herewith. The cited
prior art reference to Guidetti (US 2017/0055603 A1) is of particular relevance to the
claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKWOKWO REDHEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday7:00 AM to 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKWOKWO OLABISI REDHEAD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights